- Home
- Nomination
- UK Cases
- Overseas Cases
- Panel
- Guidance
- Glossary
- Legislation
- England & Wales
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
- Australia (Australian Capital Territory)
- Australia (New South Wales)
- Australia (Northern Territory)
- Australia (Queensland)
- Australia (Southern Territory)
- Australia (Tasmania)
- Australia (Victoria)
- Australia (Western Australia)
- Eire
- Isle of Man
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- Links
- Contact Us
Case Study Archive
Below you can see our full case archive.
There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive-
19th March 2003R. Durtnell & Sons Ltd v Kaduna Ltd [2003] EWHC 517 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A dispute cannot arise before an independent third party who is asked to decide an issue has reached his decision. A party would not be penalised for raising a jurisdiction point in enforcement proceedings unless it had knowingly elected not to raise it in the Adjudication. Judge Richard Seymour QC, Technology and Construction Court 19 March 2003 D undertook building work for K under a JCT 80 contract including amendment 18. Various disputes arose, some of which D referred to adjudication. The Adjudicator awarded D an extension of time and release of liquidated damages for loss and expense that had been withheld by K. K did not pay the whole sum awarded. D sought summary judgment for the amount outstanding. K argued that the Adjudicator had exceeded...
-
13th March 2003Scope Data Systems v BDO Nelson Parkhill [2003] NSWSC 137CORPORATIONS - Winding up - application for order setting aside statutory demand - judgment debt - steps taken to appeal - whether statutory stay of execution, if in force, gives rise to genuine dispute as to existence of debt - whether appeal of itself gives rise to genuine dispute - whether statutory stay of execution represents some other reason why demand should be set aside - PROCEDURE - Local Court judgment for debt - avenue of appeal to Supreme Court - whether leave to appeal needed - whether appeal initiated within time - whether statutory stay of execution in force ACTS CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss.459E, 459G, 459J - Justices Act 1902, ss.101, 104, 106, 107 - Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970, s.69 - Local Courts (Civil Claims) Rules 1988 - Supreme Court Rules, Part 51B
-
13th March 2003No 96 Factory Bargains v Kershel Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 146CORPORATIONS - winding up - application for order setting aside statutory demand - alleged genuine dispute - alleged offsetting claim for misleading or deceptive conduct ACTS CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss.459G, 459H - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss.51AC, 52, 87
-
6th March 2003Harvey Shopfitters Ltd v ADI Ltd [2003] TCCAn issue was raised as to whether the IFC Sectional Completion Supplement was imported into the agreement. Whether or not it was accepted did not affect the nature of the agreement nor determine whether or not the IFC Conditions were part of the Contract. The appropriate approach to the issues is as follows: the Courts now adopt a practical approach to whether and what agreement should be upheld; niceties which might on a more traditional approach have been regarded as precluding agreement will not now be so regarded unless essential to the basis of the agreement; this is the more so where the contract has been fully performed.
-
3rd March 2003Vaughan Eng. Ltd v Hinkins & Frewin Ltd [2003] ScotCS 56 CA 202/02This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In Scotland, when seeking to defend an action for the enforcement of an adjudicator's decision, the Defendant simply needed to plead in defence that the adjudicator's decision was invalid. Lord Clarke (Outer House) Court of Session 3 March 2003 This was an action for summary judgment for enforcement of an adjudicator's decision dated 22 October 2002. The parties had entered into a DOM/1 Contract 1980 Edition with Amendments, under which VE agreed to execute certain mechanical works in connection with the modernisation of research laboratories for the University of Reading. As the contract did not contain adjudication provisions, the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied. An adjudication had taken place and VE sought to enforce the Adjudicator's...
-
24th February 2003M & L Watson Pty Ltd t/as BBR Designs v Rilsung Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 36LEAVE TO APPEAL - where judgment at first instance was a discretionary costs judgment - where trial judge did not follow ordinary rule that costs follow the event - whether novelty of Building and Construction (Security of Payment) Act a relevant factor in exercising discretion to not make a costs order - where no matter of principle involved in appeal- where quantum of damages, although not ascertained, is clearly significantly below the statutory threshold LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act s101(2(c)
-
17th February 2003Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil P/L [2003] NSWCA 4CONTRACT - Superintendent's obligation under AS2124 - 1992 to issue a payment certificate is subject to a condition precedent that contractor support payment claims with evidence and information - Requirement of contractor to provide evidence and information constitutes a condition precedent on either of two bases: a non-promissory condition or an obligation imposed on the contractor, which conditions the superintendent's obligation to issue payment certificate - Requirement of contractor to provide evidence and information is comparable to purchaser's obligation to service notice to complete - Meaning of term "monthly". LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth), s 459G - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999, s 8(2)(b)
-
14th February 2003Pegram Shopfitters v Tally Weijl [2003] HT 03/25Tally declined to pay the sum of ?95,483.78 plus interest and the adjudicator's fees arguing that there was no construction contract between the parties or if there was a contract, that the contract was different in content to the contract found to exist by the adjudicator. Pegram claimed that it was one based on its own conditions of sale whilst Tally claimed that it was one based on the JCT Prime Cost Standard Form of Contract 1998. There were no adjudication provisions in the Pegram standard terms thus on its case, the Scheme would apply. Here, HHJ Thornton QC found that the parties had entered into a construction contract in such a way that its terms were not clearly and unquestionably capable of being identified. The reason was that the negotiations consisted of a series of offers and counter offers. No complete set of contract documentation was identified. Therefore, the parties had...
-
6th February 2003Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund [2003] EWCA Civ 84